Acts 19:2-7 – Disciples of John the Baptist

Luke intended this paragraph to be read along with the previous unit, the introduction of Apollos as a disciple of John. Just as Luke contrasted Barnabas with Ananias in 4:36-28 and 5:1-2, Apollos and the other disciples of John stand in contrast One disciple heard John and accept Jesus as the Messiah (although not fully understanding the implications of the resurrection, most likely with respect for Gentile salvation), the other disciples heard John but were ignorant of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The dozen disciples of John indicate that even 20 years after John’s death there was a movement amount the Jews that held John to be a prophet and in some way kept his teachings alive. Perhaps the gospel of John gives us a similar hint, especially if it can be show that John wrote from Ephesus near the end of the first century.

These disciples cannot be considered Christians at this point since they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. While Luke only uses “disciple” for believers in every other case in Acts, his use of μαθητής here is without a definite article, the such example in Acts. At the very least these are unusual Christians, perhaps “fringe” Christians, similar to the “unusual, fringes of Judaism described in the first half of the book. Paul’s question – did you receive the Holy Spirit – is equivalent to asked, “are you believers?” Not only have these disciples not received the Holy Spirit, they do not even know that there is a Holy Spirit!

Paul asked them “into whom” or “into what” they were baptized. The NIV obscures this a bit, interpreting the question as “who baptized you,” rather than “what was the medium in which you were baptized.” Witherington comments that the image of being immersed into the Holy Spirit was common in the early church, see Rom 6:3, 1 Cor 1:13, 15, 10:2, 12:13, Gal 3:27). His point is that the “whom” of this verse cannot refer to water; he sees the baptism of the Holy Spirit as entry into saving faith, while baptism in water is entry into the Christian community (Acts, 571).

Since they had been baptized “in John’s baptism,” Paul explains that John’s baptism was not enough, it was a “baptism of repentance,” which looked forward to the ministry of Jesus. One could not be saved at this point in history only by accepting the message of John, it is only through faith in Jesus that one can be saved (as Acts has made abundantly clear prior to this point in the book!)

As has happened at several points in the book of Acts already, there is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit (tongues and prophesy) after Paul lays hands on these disciples. There is no consistent “order of events” in Acts, sometimes the Spirit comes prior to baptism (10:44-48, Cornelius) and other times baptism is prior (19:1-7), and in the case of Apollos, there is no mention of a re-baptism or of the coming of the Spirit. Perhaps this is because he properly understood the message of John as pointing forward to Jesus, but that is not clear.

In fact, this is the only case of re-baptism in the New Testament, even the twelve were not re-baptized into the name of Jesus, they only had experienced the baptism of John (although one wonders about Matthew, since he was called to be an Apostle after John’s ministry.) The point of this brief narrative is to show that it is possible to have a limited knowledge of Jesus which is not enough to be saved – theologically there was nothing wrong with these disciples except that they did not quite believe enough. They did not believe something that was wrong, but they did not take their belief to the full extent needed for salvation.

Here is another problem for Applying Acts – what do we make of these disciples? Are these disciples “partial believers” who have participated in a ritual (John’s Baptism) but did not believe enough to be actually Christians? What is it that “saved” these disciples? In any case, it is the reception of the Holy Spirit which demonstrates they are in fact now Christians.

Flickr Photos

15 comments

So interesting questions, and I don’t think anybody in todays time can relate or have the same experience. They have heard the Gospel and believed, or they have heard a false Gospel, as referenced to in In 1 Timothy 6. These guys have head prophecy about a coming Messiah and then they must have disappeared from society to hear about Jesus. Maybe these guys did what the Israelites did they took a faith and added lots of rules, ordinances, commands, demands and made it religious. They were so busy keeping up that they forgot the reason why they believed John’s prophecy of Jesus. We have seen this before in the old testament with the Israelites forgetting the fact that God led them out of Egypt. Maybe the thing that saved them, was that they stopped focusing on John and started focusing on Jesus. So they would have repented from worshiping John, which I think John would have appreciated. This is an interesting example of worshiping anything besides the true source (God) will not help you grow.

I think it would be such a weird thing to be faced with two different baptisms back in the day, where if I had been baptized by water previously, then told it was not enough I might have gotten angry. Although the only way I know to fully believe and surrender to God and accepting the Gospel of Jesus that John taught, was to truly believe with my whole heart. I for one am not a Christian who thinks it is necessary to be baptized by water, it is a great show for others to know, but one does not need to have it done in order to be saved. Which is why I find this passage interesting coming from my view, because it says here in Acts that baptism by water is not enough.
I think the followers are believers, I think unless their hearts were in the correct place when they were baptized, then they were not fully believers in the Gospel that Jesus taught. But I think because of their messages that they shared that they are believers not partial ones.

What do we make of these disciples? I would suggest that it is reasonable to accept these Jews as a group of people who have heard John’s voice calling for repentance for the kingdom is near, yet not understanding what that meant. They were probably like many Jews, under a misguided notion of what a Messiah was. They could have been looking for a King, or revolutionary. Whatever they were expecting or looking for the stories of Jesus did not seem to do it for them. Most likely when Jesus died they dismissed him as just an ordinary man. However, Paul, confronted them the gospel and taught them through what they already believed as disciples of John.

It is really interesting that Luke makes it clear that these people, although believing in John the Baptist’s message, did not fully understand the full work of Jesus. These disciples followed John, who at Jesus’ own baptism, announced Jesus as the Messiah. In fact, they would have most definitely heard about Jesus’ death and resurrection, if not from the local buzz then from the many witnesses to or surrounding the time it happened.

U would say that the thing that saves is not a belief of Jesus but a surrendering to him. The question posed is into whom have you been baptized. Until you have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, that is an acceptance of Jesus as LORD and savior (Messiah), your faith is incomplete. It is such a simple thing. We are not required to do anything but to submit to Christ and believe. We can teach the scriptures all we want but if we have not been baptized by the Holy Spirit through an acceptance of and surrendering to Christ, we are still not saved.

Why did that one disciple accept Christ after hearing John? I think that a more important question is that why did accept Christ without understanding the implications of the resurrection? I don’t know what is better, the disciple accepting Christ without understanding the implications or the other disciples being completely ignorant of the Gospel. I guess that both of them are bad. That makes perfect sense not to call the disciples Christians that had not accepted the Holy Spirit. Being baptized does not make them saved. It is just showing something public. Getting baptized is a public confession of faith.

I agree 100% that these disciples are not “saved” they are not at a personal level with Jesus. They think that the action of basptism is enough. But, Jesus said that he is te only way to the Father and that there is no other way. So, call me crazy but I like to go by what Jesus said…. So those followers of John are not saved unless they know more about Jesus…

I too would agree that these disciples are not Christians in the sense that they have a skewed understanding of Christ. John the Baptist taught that one would be coming after him that was going to be greater than him. This obviously was referencing Jesus. It’s always easy to point out flaws and misunderstandings from this side of the Bible and two thousand years of history, but I think it’s safe to say that these people weren’t Christians. They had an understanding of everything that John the Baptist taught, but they weren’t catching the biggest part of his ministry, the coming Messiah. Like many of the people above me have said, our faith is incomplete unless we’ve been baptized by the Holy Spirit. That is what separates the Christian from the follower of John the Baptist.

“Paul explains that John’s baptism was not enough, it was a ‘baptism of repentance,’ which looked forward to the ministry of Jesus.” According to Paul’s letter to the Roman church, one must confess the Lordship of Jesus and His resurrection by God in order to gain salvation through Jesus.
But also as you concluded, it is not that the disciples of John the Baptist believed anything that was wrong, it was only incomplete. And we are well aware that getting the first half of the answers on an exam is great, but if a student fails to also complete the second half of the exam, he will fail. And so we can understand John’s gospel as well – great, but only partial. But I would agree with the consensus that, until Paul shared the full Gospel with them, these people were still outside of the community of the Redeemed, separate from partnership with the Spirit.

This story is very interesting in that the disciples changed their minds so quickly. It could be that there was much more dialogue than the passage suggests, but maybe they were on the right track with John’s baptism. It is logical that Jesus would be the next step. Maybe they were looking for the one who followed him. Just as it is logical to us to see Jesus following John’s baptism.

It could also just be a nod to Luke’s first book. A reference to the book of Luke and how John would lead into Jesus’ ministry.

“A baptism of repentence” which looks forward to the ministry of Jesus.
What exactly does this mean?? and why did’nt John tell his disciples that Jesus is God incarnate, or did he not know this himself?

Hi Tom…a “baptism of repentance” which anticipates the activity of the Messiah probably should be taken as identifying the individual with the messianic movement, and since John preached repentance, there must have been some repentance of sin in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah. So if someone was joining the Qumran community, for example, they prepared themselves spiritually, including ritual washing and confession of sin,

My guess is that John the Baptist did not know Jesus was God Incarnate, any Jew living in the first century would have been quite confused by the claim!

I’ve built my understanding up on believing that Paul is refering to water baptism.

Also, on the note of Paul’s questioning if they had been baptized, how can it mean “are you believers?” when he follows that up with “since you believed”? I don’t see how that makes sense, basically asking “Have you become believers since you believed?”. He’s asking what the text says he’s asking. “Have you recieved the Holy Ghost since you believed?”.

When I look at verses two and three I wonder why does Paul ask them if they have recieved the Holy Ghost since they believed? That very question tells me that it’s possible not to have the Holy Ghost dwelling in you when you just believe. Paul didn’t yet know that they didn’t know who Christ was when he asked that. Then when they said they’d never heard of the Holy Ghost he asks them how they were baptized! Why would he ask that unless baptism had something to do with recieving the Holy Ghost?

One of the funny things about Acts is that the Holy Spirit comes on people at different times, always after belief, but sometimes before baptism (Cornelius) or only after an apostle lays on hands (the Samaritans in Chapter 8). Acts is tricky for creating a theology since Luke is being representative, showing the HS moving out from Jerusalem, and not creating a systematic theology that pleases my 21st century mind.

I think another factor here is Luke’s penchant for telling a Peter and Paul story that are parallel. In Acts 8, fringe believers (Samaritans) do not get the HS until Peter questions them and lays hands on them. In Acts 18, the followers of John the Baptist are also “fringe” in that they do not even know there is a HS yet, then Paul lays hands on them and they get the Spirit.